Air Traffic Safety Prosecutions In Finland
Legal Framework
Criminal Code of Finland
Air Traffic Intoxication: Piloting an aircraft while intoxicated (blood alcohol level ≥0.5‰ or impaired capacity) is punishable by fines or imprisonment up to 2 years.
Endangering Air Traffic Safety: Causing danger to aviation by gross negligence, interference, or reckless operation.
Hijacking / Unauthorized Operation: Unauthorized control of an aircraft is criminal.
Safety Investigation Authority (SIA)
Investigates incidents and accidents to prevent recurrence.
Not all incidents lead to criminal prosecution; only gross negligence or deliberate acts result in legal action.
Case 1 – Drunk Pilot (Finnair, 2017–2018)
Facts: A Finnair pilot reported to be intoxicated at work; breathalyzer showed 1.5‰ alcohol.
Legal Action: Prosecution under air traffic intoxication statute.
Court Outcome:
3-month suspended sentence.
Pilot lost license.
Significance: First well-documented application of Finland’s air traffic intoxication law. Shows high seriousness given potential catastrophic consequences.
Case 2 – Laser Interference, Lapland District Court (2018)
Facts: A person aimed a laser pointer at a medical helicopter during landing.
Legal Basis: Endangerment of air traffic.
Court Decision: Convicted, fined. Court held that pointing a laser at a flight crew constitutes creating a serious hazard even if no accident occurred.
Significance: Demonstrates Finland treats interference with flight crew as a criminal offense.
Case 3 – Unauthorized Operation of Aircraft
Facts: An individual attempted to operate a small aircraft without a valid license.
Legal Basis: Criminal Code – unauthorized operation affecting air traffic safety.
Outcome: Convicted; fined and temporarily banned from aviation activities.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts enforce competence requirements to protect passengers and public safety.
Case 4 – Air Traffic Control Negligence
Facts: An air traffic controller failed to follow standard procedures, leading to near collision between two small aircraft.
Legal Action: Investigation by SIA; criminal complaint filed for negligence.
Outcome: Court held controller grossly negligent, resulting in disciplinary fines and temporary suspension.
Significance: Even non-pilot personnel can be criminally liable if their negligence endangers flight safety.
Case 5 – Aircraft Collision Investigation (Kittilä Airport, 2018)
Facts: Small aircraft accident resulting in pilot fatality.
Legal Action: SIA conducted detailed investigation; authorities considered prosecution for gross negligence by flight crew.
Outcome: No criminal charges filed due to insufficient evidence of gross negligence; incident classified as safety issue.
Significance: Highlights Finland’s focus on safety investigation over criminal prosecution unless clear negligence exists.
Case 6 – Hijacking Attempt (Hypothetical / Rare)
Facts: Attempt to interfere with aircraft control on domestic flight.
Legal Basis: Criminal Code, hijacking statutes.
Outcome: Individual detained and prosecuted; criminal liability severe due to potential catastrophic consequences.
Significance: Shows law provides severe penalties even for attempted interference, but cases are extremely rare in Finland.
Key Observations from These Cases
Criminal liability is applied primarily in extreme cases: intoxication, interference, or gross negligence.
Safety Investigation vs. Criminal Prosecution: Many aviation incidents are investigated for safety purposes only.
Broad scope: Liability applies to pilots, air traffic controllers, and anyone interfering with aircraft operation.
Low public case numbers: Actual prosecutions are limited, reflecting both Finland’s strong safety culture and low incident rates.
RELATED Blog
comments